If you are creating a parenting plan in Florida, you've probably found the Florida Supreme Court form online. It looks official. It feels comprehensive. It appears to cover everything.

It doesn't.

The Supreme Court form satisfies the minimum statutory requirements under Florida Statute 61.13. It is designed to ensure basic compliance. But a legally sufficient document is not the same thing as a functional co-parenting system.

A parenting plan is more than a schedule. It is the operating manual for how two households will raise the same child. If it lacks clarity, structure, and conflict-prevention mechanics, you are not preventing litigation — you are postponing it.

Let's break down what the form includes, what it misses, and what strong parenting plans should address.

Parental Responsibility

Florida law presumes shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child. The form allows you to select shared, shared with ultimate decision-making authority, or sole parental responsibility.

The form gives you the categories. It does not give you the mechanics.

It does not clearly define how disputes get resolved when parents disagree. It does not structure tie-breaking processes beyond simply naming a parent. It does not create a built-in escalation path such as required consultation with a specialist before litigation.

Timesharing Schedules

Florida now has a presumption of equal timesharing. Common schedules include 2-2-3 for younger children, 5-2 schedules for elementary-aged children, and 7-7 schedules for older children and teenagers.

The Supreme Court form provides blank spaces for regular schedules, holiday schedules, and summer schedules.

What it does not do well is force parents to define priority.

A strong parenting plan clearly states that holidays override vacation, vacation overrides regular timesharing, and provides written conflict resolution language when schedules overlap. Without priority language, parents end up fighting over situations like Easter falling during spring break or a holiday weekend conflicting with summer rotation.

Holiday and Break Schedules

The form includes a holiday section, but it lacks detailed structure.

It does not clearly define how to divide long Thanksgiving breaks in districts that provide ten-day holidays. It does not walk parents through splitting winter break with carved-out provisions for Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, or religious holidays. It does not require clarity regarding when holiday timesharing begins and ends if school is not in session.

Strong holiday provisions define start and end times, precedence, and conflict resolution. They eliminate ambiguity.

Summer Selection Priority

One of the most common annual disputes in Florida custody cases involves summer weeks.

The Supreme Court form does not include rotating selection priority. If both parents request overlapping summer weeks, the form provides no built-in solution.

Experienced attorneys always include a rotating selection priority provision so that one parent has first choice in even years and the other in odd years. This single clause prevents repeated litigation.

Relocation

Florida's relocation statute is triggered when a parent moves 50 miles or more from the residence at the time of filing or last court order.

In South Florida, 50 miles can mean hours of daily travel. A parent can move 48 miles and dramatically impact a child's schedule without triggering the statute.

The Supreme Court form does not encourage customization of relocation language. Strong parenting plans often shorten the mileage radius, address local-but-disruptive moves, or include advance relocation permissions.

Education

The form includes a simple school boundary designation.

That is not enough.

It does not address private school enrollment, charter school applications, higher-rated school selection, tuition allocation, or what happens if one parent wants to pay for private school and the other objects.

Education disputes are common. Without detailed provisions, parents return to court to resolve them.

Medical Decision-Making

The form briefly addresses decision-making but does not define routine versus major medical care, who schedules appointments, what requires joint consent, or what happens when parents disagree about medication or treatment.

It does not distinguish between emergency care, sick visits, elective procedures, therapy, or mental health services.

Clear medical provisions are essential — especially in cases involving chronic conditions, therapy, or special needs.

Extracurricular Activities

The extracurricular section in the Supreme Court form is one of its weakest areas.

It separates registration from participation in a way that confuses parents. It does not clearly define cost-sharing caps, pro rata payment obligations, transportation responsibility, or what constitutes mutual agreement.

It also includes language referencing activities “of the child's choice,” which can become a source of manipulation in high-conflict situations.

Strong plans specify that extracurriculars must be mutually agreed upon, define cost-sharing percentages, establish expense caps, and clarify transportation responsibilities.

Transportation and Exchanges

The form addresses who picks up and drops off but lacks detailed exchange logistics.

It does not define how long a parent must wait if the other is late. It does not clarify notice requirements for delays. It does not specify consequences for last-minute cancellations or missed exchanges.

Without consequences, enforcement becomes difficult.

Travel Provisions

The form includes basic travel language but does not meaningfully differentiate between in-state, out-of-state, and international travel.

It does not address written consent requirements, passport control, notice timelines, or protections related to countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention.

International travel provisions can be critical in cases involving dual citizenship or international family ties.

Communication

The form allows for electronic communication but does not require structured co-parenting apps.

Many families benefit from using platforms like Our Family Wizard, Talking Parents, or FAIR. These apps create certified communication logs admissible in court and reduce he-said-she-said disputes.

Right of First Refusal

The Supreme Court form includes a right of first refusal option, but judges often dislike poorly drafted versions of this provision.

If included, it must clearly define the triggering time period, exceptions (such as routine work), notice procedures, and response time requirements.

Vague right of first refusal language creates more conflict than it resolves.

Enforcement and Modification

Perhaps the biggest issue with the form is what it does not say about consequences.

It does not clearly outline what happens when a parent violates notice provisions, arrives late, cancels exchanges, or fails to share information.

It does not include structured escalation processes before litigation.

Florida law requires a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances to modify a parenting plan. That is a high standard. The form does not explain that reality or encourage careful drafting on the front end.

Long-Distance Parenting Plans

Long-distance plans require entirely different scheduling structures, travel cost allocation, and flexibility mechanisms.

The form does not guide parents through long-distance planning in any meaningful way.

Custom long-distance provisions address travel logistics, airfare responsibilities, accompanying adults, extended summer blocks, and school-year long weekends.

The Bottom Line

The Florida Supreme Court parenting plan form is not wrong. It is simply minimal.

It is designed to meet statutory requirements. It is not designed to prevent future litigation in high-conflict or complex families.

A well-drafted parenting plan anticipates predictable disputes and resolves them on paper before they become court hearings.

If your parenting plan does not answer foreseeable conflicts, it is not protecting your child — it is preserving future arguments.

If you are creating a parenting plan in Florida and want to do it correctly the first time, explore our Parenting Plan Creation Workshop.

Need one-on-one guidance without full representation? Learn more about our DIY Legal Coaching and Unbundled Legal Services.

Ready for mediation? Schedule a mediation consultation through Family Matters Law Group, P.A.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court form gets you filed.
A customized parenting plan keeps you out of court.

 

 

Want us to assist you in customizing your parenting plan?